Dear Democrats: Why Does The Saudi King Know What To Do About Gas Prices, And You Don't?

By haystack Posted in | | | | Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

[image via House Minority Whip regularly updated]

King Abdullah seems to GET IT about how to deal with the crisis at the pumps...while our friends in the majority on the Hill continue to have no freaking clue. From The Independent:

Next month, the Saudis will be pumping an extra half-a-million barrels of oil a day compared to last month, bringing total Saudi production to 9.7 million barrels a day, their highest ever level. But the world's biggest oil exporters are coupling the increase with an appeal to western Europe to cut fuel taxes to lower the price of petrol to consumers.

You hear that Democrats?

Cut the freaking taxes and increase the freaking production. It's just not that hard, kids.

More below the stinking fold...

I am frankly sick and tired of reading, almost daily, about gas prices hitting a "fresh" all-time high"...especially when I have to read about just who is to blame for this mess - freaking Congress. Of course, we all KNOW who runs that disaster these days, now, don't we?

Look...I'm fine with all this environmental protection stuff, m'kay? I'm down with green...I luvs me some alternate energy too...but there is something just a snidge more pressing in our lives right now than worrying about "sticking it to the Man" running the oil companies or kissing a little environmentalist whacko butt.

Y'all remember Katrina? When she destroyed New Orleans and shut down a few refineries and temporarily closed several offshore rigs in the Gulf, gas blew up from around 1.69 to 3.00. We were assured it was temporary because of the obvious hit on "supply." Demand didn't change much, but we were in a pinch and we were all going to have to weather a period of harsh pressure on the flow of oil. Well that came and went, and-yep, you guessed it-prices went down...but only by a fraction...to about 2.50.

See, Democrats, if we'll pay 2.50, perhaps we'll pay 2.70. How about 3.05? 3.15? Sure, why not. Heck, let's shoot for the moon and try for 3.75? Well, look where we are now. So much for the Pelosi's nonsensical pledge for a New Direction and her straight-faced lie about energy security, huh?

While the Parties are taking pot-shots at each other over who has the best answer, we're all drowning out here. Trucks, tractors, and trains...and ALL of us would appreciate our Political heroes thinking a little more about what WE need and a little less about what might get them re-elected.

Whatever we need to do in the future to wean from fossil fuels to wind or rain or solar or whatever little "greenie goblin" these nuts come up with...we need something NOW, TODAY to address the immediate crisis. To suggest, as the Democrats do, that we need to be forced to change our behavior by making it too expensive to use gas (and thereby reduce prices somehow) is positively the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

This Energy debate has been rightly called a charade and it is increasingly reminding me of another time in our history..

[image source BGMod ]

[image source Students.Salisbury.edu ]

We all know how THAT turned out, don't we?

Hey-how do you think our environmentalist friends would take it if we had a Houston Barrel Party? Put a couple hundred barrels into the Gulf of Mexico to make a point? Boy howdy would they get worked up about the environmental crisis. That oil slick would sure get their attention...what the heck? Can't really do much more harm to the Gulf...

« "A Plague That Does Not Discriminate By Economic Class, Race Or Age"Comments (85)
Dear Democrats: Why Does The Saudi King Know What To Do About Gas Prices, And You Don't? 41 Comments (0 topical, 41 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

It is when you've sold your soul to the extreme environmentalists.

-----------

Here's a contrast for you: one presidential candidate refused an early release from a POW camp as a matter of honor....the other hasn't got the guts to do a series of town hall debates.

But, if we have more production and lower taxes, how are we on the left going to force people to take public transportation to go to work and have alternative energy sources like burning our food as less-efficient-but-more-expensive-even-though-federally-subsidized fuels?!

< end enviro-weenie mode >

Drill. DRILL DRILL DRILL. I don't care if you have to kick a polar bear in the butt to get at the oil in the TINY ANWR area.. do it.

Build Nuclear Power Plants everywhere you can. THAT'S viable alternative power. If an area doesn't have oil, it's a great place for a nuclear power plant.

Make AFFORDABLE electric cars that get a range of a few hundred miles, that can charge in the home from said nuclear power plants.

Rather than trying to steal the profits from oil companies, LOWER their taxes as a prgoram to lower the cost of gas and diesel.

Encourage people to keep their cars tuned by allowing car maintenance and yearly tuneups to be tax deductable.

< end rant >

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Here is a link to Newt’s petition on this subject. It is only a few signatures short of 800,000.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

A car that get's several hundred miles on pure charge is not really that feasible today. Ford is coming out with a plug-in hybrid Escape that's capable of running 40miles on a charge and the engine helps with highway speeds and distances over 40miles. When it releases, it'll be capable of getting you to and from work for about $50 a month with gas and electric costs combined. Toyota announced a plan to do something like that with the prius, but they're a couple of years behind by now as Ford already has a test fleet out.

But sadly, he's not listening.

Hey Johnny Mac! Remember illegal immigration? WE THE PEOPLE are DEMANDING that we drill our own oil! And yet no one (except a few in the Senate & Congress) seem to be listening.

www.scottbomb.com

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. --- John Adams

Isn't Senator McCain's plan the same as the Democrats. Which implies the Republicans have no new plan.

There is more than a President in the elections this year-regardless the O, or McC...CONGRESS writes these damn fool laws, and we have to be watching our House and Senate candidates on this issue...whoever gets PA Ave...if the Dems get veto proof majorities, buy a bicycle...

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Have you tried to park it somewhere bike racks are a thing of the past. And with all the quick release crap even if there is a place to park it I have to disassemble the dang thing and carry the parts with me. Far to annoying.

A motercycle is a better choice much better chance that it will still be arround and you can park it.

Regarding comments about the Ford Escape Hybrid, it's just not a very good vehicle, period. Check out the GM Volt. It's an all electric drivetrain. It plugs in, runs off of electric only for 40 or so miles, then when the battery hits a certain level, the small gas engine kicks in to charge the battery and feed electricity to the drivetrain. None of the crappy dual drivetrain stuff the Prius or the Escape has.
The Volt will get over 500 miles on a tank.

Anyway, regarding fuel prices and such: I agree with drilling in ANWR, but I'd like to know where the gas savings estimate comes from? We have to remember that petroleum is sold on a world market, not an American one. There's a TON of oil in ANWR (anywhere from 4 billion up to about 10 billion barrels extractable) but America alone uses 20 million barrels a DAY. I just don't see the price savings suggested there unless the oil was sold only in America, which i don't think is legal to do.

Libertarian is the new Republican

And they cost between 10k and 15k. The hybrids just don't pay. Neither do the goofy electric cars.

Heck if you hold the car even for 10 years. The higher cost of insurance and interest on the money and depreciation will overwhelm the fuel savings.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Are you factoring in the upward swing in gas prices in your analysis?

Personally, I'm curious to see how the hybrid Honda Fit turns out.

Assume one battery replacement during the 10 years for the prius and similar maintenance costs everything else (That's a gimme to the prius btw it has a much more complex drivetrain)


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I know that the Prius is fashionable car with the environmental edge, but the less sexy Ford Focus gets better gas mileage, costs less, will require fewer batter replacements, and most importantly, does not utilize a giant size battery that will end up in a garbage dump somewhere.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Driving 15K miles a year
25 MPG = 600 gallons of gas a year
35 MPG = 428 gallons of gas a year
45 MPG = 333 gallons of gas a year

Even a really inefficient car will only cost an additional $1500/year to operate.

Why do you think the greens still want gas taxes ?


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We need more refineries, drilling, going after oil shale. We need a comprehensive plan to show the American people that if they vote for Republican, they will be significantly better off.

This isn't just cars though. We need widespread reform to nuclear power. Electric cars wouldn't be silly if we had nuclear power.

This is real change that can be delivered. It's not dependent on technology that may or may not come in the next few years (though cheap nuclear fusion will probably come eventually.) It's just pragmatic.

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Regan

I wrote an article about Drilling on my blog a couple of weeks ago. You'll have to go to the older post to see it. I also just posted an article on www.RealClearPolitics.com
Why Won't Obama Debate McCain? Check it out.

http://www.thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/

If the Republicans continue to let the environmentalists control this issue, they will be doomed (again). Will not be surprised though as they seem to be sooo... green these days...

Don't understand just how the greenies continue to control the agenda though with gas prices going through the roof. Must be a really great payoff to the elected group though...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Take a look at the effect Oil profits are going through the roof. Do you really think the Oil companies are upset with the greens ?


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

the greens are increasing the profits of the oil companies...so yes, I would say that they might well be a cause and effect that prospers the oil companies (I know that this is contrary to the obvious effect).

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Agendas that succeed are those that ultimately are beneficial to oil companies.

Look cap and trade got shot down like a zero over the Marianas.

But Opening up new reserves a move that would decrease the cost of oil doesn't go anywhere. That is despite a majority of Americans not caring about Caribou.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Can you say freedom of exploration! Can you say freedom of ownership... Can you say freedom of exploration of states offshore... Geez, our federal government (and federal courts) are so stupid and restrictive that it is becoming ridiculous (okay, communistic - heaven help us).

We could be energy dependent if we had pursued both nuclear and oil energy in the past (without the asinine attitudes of the greens).

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

drill in the US. Having to get oil from places like Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. substantially reduces their margins.

It does play well as a concept though.
Would make a nice sequel to the pelican brief.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

to ignore the basic argument...but...it was a nice out...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I also wouldn't rule out oil company influence over ostensibly green groups. Corporations usually are no more right or left than sharks.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

that was good or bad for society as a whole...?

ormally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

The greens not much.

The Oil companies have powered our society for the last century.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

That they made huge investments and took risks 100+ years ago and do so still is why they prosper.

Lots of folks had motives to kill JFK in addition to Oswald. Doesn't mean they did.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

I have to admit that I don't know much about the economy, especially on a global scale. However, I have heard that the increasing gas prices are a result of the loss of value of the dollar rather than supply and demand. (That makes sense too since it would sound odd for supply and/or demand to be changing at the same rate gas prices are.)

So while I certainly agree we do need to drill for more sources of oil ASAP, I don't think it is good to simply fix the symptoms without addressing the greater underlying problem. Current gas price increases need to be addressed as a separate matter from alternative sources of oil.

Assuming what I've read is correct, I really think we need to first address the issue of why the dollar has so little value and then do whatever is necessary to put it back up where it ought to be. Unfortunately, my lack of understanding of the economy keeps me from understanding why our currency would steadily decline so much so fast and for so long.

You are right: The dollar's loss in value is a major factor. The Arab states have long pegged their currencies to the value of the dollar, meaning that they value barrels of oil in U.S. dollars. As the value of the dollar goes down, for them to keep getting the same number of Euros or Yen, they have to raise the price of a barrel of crude by reducing output.
One of the major reasons the dollar has fallen in value has been reductions in taxes without reductions in government spending, combined with abnormally low interest rates for sustained periods of time. Research currency markets on the net, you'll find out a lot.
In short, drilling would help some, but let's be frank here. WE CANNOT DRILL OUR WAY OUT OF THIS PROBLEM.
Nuclear power plants are safe now, and a good immediate solution, followed by localized solar and wind investments.
Renewable energy IS national security, plain and simple.

Libertarian is the new Republican

If you are correct, Congress should acknowledge that the gas prices are the result of this imbalance in spending and attempt to correct it. Also if you are correct, whoever is responsible for interest rates should raise them. Of couse I'd have to do a lot more research to learn about it.

When mentioning gas prices, it seems like people keep trying to address tangential issues (energy supply, oil company profits) in response. If the CURRENT gas prices are not a result of less oil supply or greedy executives, it is disingenuous to connect the two. New sources of energy may be necessary, and Congress may need to raise taxes to keep up with spending; but those issues have no business being lumped together with the CURRENT rising gas prices.

This is a Oil Futures Speculator contrived price rise and not because we do not have enough oil in the market to meet demand.

Increased domestic production will be good for our Current Account Deficit, but production around the world has jumped upwards this year and so has oil prices.

because supply is tight. Efforts to increase production will pop the bubble way before the additional oil hits the market.

Just as the housing bubble eventually popped due to reality, the same will happen to the energy market.

The futures market is keying off tightness (in relation to demand) of supply. No futures market can diverge from reality for too long. Once cab drivers start buying oil contracts, the bubble will burst.

fear higher prices in the future due to increased demand, our self suicide on supply and the volatility of Iran and that the price could fall significantly if we make serious moves towards increasing supply.

agreed?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Not knowing much about the economy, I have to admit I've never heard of an "Oil Futures Speculator." It seems to me the only way prices would go up is if some person or group of persons either needed more money to operate (as is the case with a dollar whose value decreases) or just got greedy.

"Futures Speculator," if I look at the context, would imply the latter. That is, the fear of what might happen in the future makes them want to charge people more so people will use less. That is called "hoarding." This seems a bit unrealistic to me. Of course, I could be totally off on my assumptions.

First it's oil executives, then less supply, then the value of the dollar, then hoarding. It should not be that hard to find out why oil prices are going up at the rate they currently are!

Somewhere along the line, there is a person or group of persons who either wants or needs (and will keep wanting or needing) a little bit more each and every week in exchange for oil. The ultimate reason behind that need or request is what needs to be addressed, I believe, more urgently than finding any alternative oil or energy sources.

Higher prices PREVENT hoarding. For instance, after Hurricane Hugo, the price of generators skyrocketed. Some cried gouging. But had the price not reflected supply and demand the precious few generators would have been gobbled up by a few people. The higher price spread the available supply around.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Of course higher demand and less supply are necessary reasons to increase the price. However, there is no increased demand or decreased supply according to what I've heard and read (certainly not proportional to the oil price increases at the current rate of increase).

I had implied from "speculation" (incorrectly apparently) that there was little actual basis for assuming increased demand or decreased supply, or that such basis was more along the lines of "what if the sky falls."

So we're back to the same issue. If a supply and demand problem is not to blame for the current rise in oil prices, then we need to address what is.

present and expected future supplies and demands.

Unless there is a monopoly.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Hey, I'd love to have some relief at the pump, but those savings numbers don't make any sense.

Oil from shale or oil sands is much more expensive to produce than liquid oil. How the heck does it reduce prices to bring online a production method that is significantly more costly than current methods??

If it was decided today to do the deep water drilling and oil shale production it would be several years before meaningful volumes of oil were produced. And the investment to get them in production would be gigantic. So the estimates are likely to have a huge margin of error.

How does building a multi-million dollar refinery reduce the cost of gasoline? That new refinery would be able to sell its gas into a market that is willing to pay $4.20 / gallon for gas (probably $9/g by the time the refinery came on line).

If these numbers were for real then you could save so much on production the gas would be free.

the costs associated with it. Since oil is a commodity, it is traded on a futures market. The futures market is being driven up by speculation of a reduced supply and increased demand in the future. If we signal that there will actually be an increase in supply that will lessen the pressure by the speculators. That *should* lead to lower prices.



Now also found at The Minority Report

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service